**
Well, thanks. Always nice to know when people are provoked to consider different outlooks based on my arguments. I’m a bit flattered.
**
I’ve seen the same studies, but the problem I see with them is that it’s extremely difficult to contoll for outside socializing factors, such as peer groups, and media influence. Twins may share the same genetics, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll share exactly the same experiences, have the same friends, or watch the same movies. Some of the twins I have known have been incredibly different. One may be quiet and timid, where the other is outgoing and rambunctious. They may like/hate completely different things.
**
I’m sorry, but I still disagree, having not seen enough supporting evidence from reliable research.
Research is a funny thing. As I said before, it is difficult to control for all outside factors. A lot of studies have underlying fundemental atributional errors, and often don’t supply enough data to reveal these flaws to the causal viewer. The researchers publish their results, and sometimes they’re reported in the media as gospel, only to be dispelled by another study a few months later.
As an example, take the recent study on diabetics and smoking. The results published asserted that smoking diabetics were more at risk for certain complications. However, it was not mentioned if the study had controlled for the fact that smokers may be casual in other aspects of their health, such as diet and excersize. Another example is the initial study that claimed that wine is good for your heart. But what wasn’t discussed is if whether wine-drinkers, who tend to be more affluent than beer drinkers, had other lifestyle factors which could lead to improved heart health, such as a better diet, better medical care, and a more active lifestyle. I have not read the entire text of the studies in question; I’m only referring to facts which were publicized in the media.
**
Yes, good point. As * Law and Order * put it: “If 85% of criminals chew gum, can we then conclude that gum chewing causes crime?”
To a certain extent, it is natural for humans (and other social animals) to establish a pecking order in which some must be the outcasts. Creatures higher on the pecking order can feel more secure and superior in having someone to look down on, and despise. “No matter what, at least I’m not________.” If a person is “different” and publicly acknowledges this difference, it’s easier to identify a potential social “reject.” They can comfortably be scapegoated and reviled.
Humans love to hate, especially in groups. People who would never identify themselves as racist will sometimes find themselves “going along with the group,” especially if the members of the group are people which are close to the subject, or whose respect and esteem the subject wants/needs to keep.
Throughout time, Jews, blacks, “witches” and other minority groups have been sacrificed to this group solidarity urge. Earlier in this century, for example, a black man was lynched. A member of the mob later wrote that even as the man was being tortured and killed, they knew he had done no crime, but the mob frenzy of hate and mass hysteria took over.
In the animal kingdom, there always seems to be one member of the pack who is the punching bag for the rest of the group. In apes, this member is always the last to eat, is rarely groomed by other members of the group, is the last selected as a mate, and sometimes is refused access to the other members’ sleeping area. Often times, researchers can find no visable clues as to why this particular ape has been chosen as the scapegoat, or reject. They may display no weakness, or timidity which could explain the reaction of the others, other than the fact that it appears that in all social groups an Omega is needed in the hirearchy.
It’s fascinating to watch a group of children establish this order, and predjudices can be quickly instilled in kids, as demonstrated by the famous blue-eyed/brown-eyed study. Jane Elliott, teacher/sociologist, performed an experiment in which she began to discriminate against the blue-eyed children, and encouraged brown-eyed children to disciminate against them as well. She told them that children with blue eyes are lazy, dishonest, and of low intelligence. The brown-eyed kids picked up on this quickly, and soon the blue-eyed children were despised and abused by their peers.
